Public Bill Committee

[Sir Nicholas Wintertonin the Chair]

The Committee deliberated in private.

On resuming

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome our witnesses who are changing places: having been part of the Committee questioning witnesses in the earlier sessions, they are now to be subject to questions from other members of the Committee. I welcome particularly Vernon Coaker, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, Alan Campbell, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and Jim Fitzpatrick, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.
We are going to take the various sections separately. The first will be policing, the second airport security, the third prostitution, the fourth alcohol, the fifth proceeds of crime, and the final one extradition. We have agreed to spend a certain amount of time on each one, and we will start with questions on policing from the spokesman for Her Majestys Opposition.

Q 162

David Ruffley: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. My questions are addressed to the Minister of State in the spirit of honest inquiry that we have had on so many occasionsnot always, but most of the time. On the issue of collaboration, I think there is one thing we can agree on. We all heard the evidence from Sir Norman Bettison on how mandation would be looked at by any Home Secretary or Minister from whichever political party. He suggestedI put the idea into his headthat Ministers in the Home Office should draw up a map dividing up England and Wales and say that those regions or sub-regions will collaborate on five issues that will be mandated across those forces. He suggested that that was at the hard end of the collaboration procedure that is provided for in the Bill. My question is a straight, practical one and it is not in any sense party political, as I am sure you will concede. Is it in the mind of the Home Office to do what I have suggested, to divide up England and Wales and have a structured programme of mandation, with specific forces for specific activities?

Mr. Coaker: Good afternoon, Sir Nicholas, and members of Committee. In answer to that question I wish to make the point, as Mr. Ruffley did, that we have constructive engagement. I say that at the beginning of every meeting, but it is important to put it on the record. Given that this is an evidence session rather than a regular Committee sitting in which it sometimes becomes a bit more them versus us, I will try to engage in the constructive way that he suggests.
The first thing to say is that the mergers debate was about closing a gap that everybody accepted existed. If that was not the correct route and the Government withdrew from proposing the mergers because of the resistance, the problem of what to do about protective services and serious and organised crime was not necessarily resolved. That fundamentally goes to the heart of the question, because if you are not going to sort this by mergers, how will you? How will you deal with serious and organised crime, cross-border issues and all those types of things?
The approach over the past few years, and our approach, has always been that we need to encourage collaboration. I am sure that if members of the Committee thought about it they could point to really good examples in their own areas of when their police forces have collaborated with other police forces to tackle problems. Certainly our view, in line with what Sir Norman said, is that the best way forward is to bring about that collaboration by voluntary meansby agreement. Alongside that, work is going on to look at what decisions are best made to help inform the choice that local police forces will make. For example Denis OConnor, the acting chief inspector, has under a letter from me been asked to consider at what level decisions are best taken, so that we get the subsidiarity debate out into the open and looked at. So work is going on, in the first instance to inform the debate about whether a decision should be taken at the local, regional or national level. We are not looking at a master plan, but we are looking at the best way to ensure collaboration.
In the Bill we have given some certainty to the legislative framework because police authorities and police forces tell us that it is not clear. That is the reason for many of the clauses. We have tried to be clear in the Bill that mandation is not a first resort. It is something that we need to consider when it is clearly in the public interest and when there just seems to be obstruction to something that everyone agrees would be of benefit to not only those police forces but the local areas. It is a last resort, based on an informed choice at a local level, rather than being some sort of great master plan that is sent down.

Q 163

David Ruffley: In using the words master plan I was not luring you into a trap, Minister. I did not mean to be pejorative. I wanted to ask whether there was something more structured than just the voluntary ad hoc collaboration arrangements that we have had up to now. Behind these clauses is the recognition by the Home Office and the observation of outsiders that voluntary collaboration does not work. It does not get enough collaboration quickly enough. You are speeding that up and facilitating it. It therefore follows logically that if the voluntary arrangements are not satisfactory after the strategic merger debateand they have not beenthe Home Office might want to force the pace. In my view, it would be right to do that. I think that you have answered the question, but I want to know whether you are aware of any work that seeks to mandate a master plan or a structured plan for England and Wales.

Mr. Coaker: No. To tease this issue out, we talk about protective services and serious and organised crime as if they are the same thing. When you are looking at collaboration, you are talking about serious and organised crimewhatever that meansbut you are also talking about IT systems, transport systems, horses and dogs, things that are related to murder investigations and protecting people from the most serious offenders. Some of those issues require different approaches from others. Serious and organised crime might need a more regional focus, whereas two or three forces might be involved in the issue of how many police forces have a mounted section. It is important to think about what is appropriate at a local level alongside the national parameters.

Q 164

David Ruffley: May I ask again how these clauses will help the police service in practice? I have in mind clause 11 and related clauses, which firm up the powers of direction for Ministers. To make this real for people who are following the debate, the clauses give more centralised powers to Ministers. That need not of itself be a bad thing. I am not saying that all centralisation is bad because it clearly is not.
Would it be fair to say that you could use these powers to mandate what Sir Ronnie Flanagan correctly said in his interim reportnot so much in the final reportthat there should be a national suite of forms for the most frequently committed offences that officers can use with minimum reporting requirements? As you will recall, in the interim report, Sir Ronnie said that he expected the national suite of forms that would save police time to be drafted by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Police Improvement Network by July 2008. That has not happened. Would the powers in clause 11 and related clauses tempt you to mandate a national suite of forms and similar time-saving measures, which need an element of centralisation?

Mr. Coaker: You can clearly use them for the purposes that you think appropriate.

Q 165

David Ruffley: Would the national suite of reforms be such an example?

Mr. Coaker: If you wanted to use the powers to introduce that, you could. However, we do not think that we will need to. There will be announcements from Jan Berry in the next few weeks that will deal with some of the issues with bureaucracy. Sir David Normingtons report into reducing the annual data requirement will also be released soon. There will be a number of measures that do not require the compilation of templates for a national suite of forms that could be mandated. The purpose of clause 11 is to inject a sense of momentum, urgency and pace into the procedures and processes. It is correct that there has been progress. We want to enhance that progress and push it further. We will mandate where necessary, but that will be a last resort.

Q 166

David Ruffley: I gave the example of the national suite of forms, which you have discounted. Just so that these clauses are brought to life, will you give the Committee a couple of examples of how this power might be used? In what areas of policy would you seek to use these powers to direct and mandate in ways that the Home Office does not already? I would like real-life practical examples.

Mr. Coaker: You could mandate the IT systems and software that are used by some forces.

Q 167

David Ruffley: Have you contemplated mandating IT solutions?

Mr. Coaker: If anybody looked at police forces across the country, they would have to be persuaded that having 43 IT solutions to a problem was for the best.

David Ruffley: I happen to agree with you.

Mr. Coaker: I know.

Q 168

David Ruffley: So, IT is a real-life example.

Mr. Coaker: IT could certainly be looked at and there are other operational things that we can do. If you look, as I know you have done, at some of the clauses dealing with collaboration, you will see that they try to address some of the practical problems of, for example, police moving across borders and issues of direction and control. It is about trying to come to an agreement voluntarily and looking to see what needs to be mandated where necessary.

Q 169

David Ruffley: So, not forms but maybe IT. That is very interesting.
I am not seeking to make a party political point, but my final question is about the very detailed proposals that were in the Green Paper that do not appear in the Bill about direct elections of crime and policing representatives. I am sure that others will want to pick up on that. Instead, in clause 1 there is a
requirement to have regard to the views
of the public on policing. Can you give an indication of where the Green Paper proposals stand? Should we expect them to be enacted after David Blunketts report? Although they are not in the Bill, I understand that they are still alive in some netherworld. What is the status of those Green Paper proposals?

Mr. Coaker: Clearly, as you say, they are not in the Bill; we took them out for the reasons that you and I have rehearsed. We worried about the politicisation that could result from direct elections of that type and, frankly, about the lack of consensus. I am not trying to make a party political point, but you know from different authorities across the country how controversial they are. In a sense, all three Front Benches of the major political parties were completely at odds with their local parties and their local authorities. We have moved to what we think is a more sensible approach to police authorities.
You asked about David Blunketts review and the issue of direct elections. The proposal will not be brought back in the near future and, clearly, there will be a general election before they could be brought back, so we will see what happens after that. The Home Secretary has asked David Blunkett to look at direct elections and see whether we, within the Labour party, can move from complete hostility towards a model that will meet the concerns people have raised about politicisation and the election of minority or extremist groups to police authorities. You are aware of many of the arguments.

Q 170

Lynda Waltho: My question concerns collaboration. What has the reaction of the police been to the proposed measures? What reaction have local authorities and the crime partnerships had over how their role will change and how important they will still be?

Mr. Coaker: There may be the odd bit or a particular element in a clause that ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities do not agree with, but, generally, they welcomed the clauses about collaboration because they have been asking for them. They have been concerned about the lack of legislative clarity about what they can and cannot do in terms of sharing services and resources, and moving officers between forces.
I also gave the example of direction and control. If an officer from my constituency in Nottinghamshire on mutual aid duties goes to Derbyshire, they fall under the direction and control of the Derbyshire force. However, if they are doing a drugs raid, for example, there is a lack of clarity over who directs and controls the operation. Where there is agreement, the Bill seeks to resolve that.
With respect to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, cross-authorisation is another matter that police officers have come to us with and said is a complete nonsense, because in different circumstances they are required to get many different authorisations because they are moving between areas. The clauses try to deal with some of those problems practically. They have generally been welcomed, and we have responded to what people have to say.
You asked about crime and disorder reduction partnerships at local level. Again, our focus is to say that we have got the police authority and police force levels, at which we seek to collaborate, and that within those levels we have local basic command units and local structures, which will continue to be as important as they have been in all our constituencies.

Q 171

Paul Holmes: Clause 1 talks about the new duty on police authorities
to have regard to the views
of the local community or the public. What exactly does that mean? How will it take effect or be enforced?

Mr. Coaker: It strengthens the current duty, under the Police Act 1996. Instead of saying that police authorities have to take into account the views of the public, or whatever the phraseology is, saying that they must have regard to views means that they will have to go out and proactively seek the opinions and views of people across the whole community. I expect that to include not only the people who normally turn up at meetings. I expect police authorities to demonstrate that they have gone out to seek the views of residents associations, community members, businesses and voluntary organisationsall those different people who make up the community. We will make that clear when we negotiate the inspection arrangements with Her Majestys inspectorate of constabulary.
Mr. Ruffley made a valid point, and sometimes it is important to read these things into the record. I do not want misunderstanding of what have regard to means. It will not be acceptable for a police authority to try to demonstrate that it has had regard to the public by saying, We gave a leaflet out. It needs to be a proactive attempt to engage with local communities, businesses, voluntary organisations, schools and so on. The key is that police authorities will have to be able to prove to HMIC, on inspection, that they have done that.
To answer Mr. Ruffley, I think that that gives us a way of addressing the fact that police authorities can be anonymous to people. That is not always the case, but, sometimesI am trying to be fairif people were asked who the members of their police authority were, they would not know. This will give police authorities a much better opportunity to be known, to be held to account for what they do, and to demonstrate not only to HMIC, but, more important, to the public, that the views that the public have expressed to them have influenced policing in their area. That can be demonstrated.

Q 172

Paul Holmes: Two points arise out of that. First, you seem to be saying that the clause does not so much create a new duty to have regard to as beef up the existing requirement on police authorities to consult. I had assumed that they did that anywayor perhaps we in Derbyshire are just very lucky and ours does that more than others.

Mr. Coaker: Have regard to is much stronger than the previous wording, which I cannot remember exactly, in the Police Act. The new wording will make a significant difference to the way in which police authorities are inspected. I know that yours is the Derbyshire police authority, and there are examples of good police authorities across the country that do that, but we are saying that it is not good enough for some to be good, some to be okay, and some to be not good. We need to have a way of driving forward to ensure that we bring all police authorities up to the standard of the best. Different people here will have different views on their police authorities and whether they are good, bad or patchy. The provision is a significant strengthening on the requirement on police authorities to consult the public and seek out their views.

Q 173

Paul Holmes: Liberty suggested that an unforeseen consequence of the stronger wording might be that community groups will bring judicial review cases, saying, Our local authority has not had regard to what we said.

Mr. Coaker: In the end, if you look at police authorities in the broadest sense, it will be a matter for HMIC to check whether there is any substance to peoples complaints, in any area, about their views not being taken into account. That brings us back to Mr. Ruffleys point, and we start arguing about the measure and mechanism that we have put in the Bill to try to ensure that people have more say on how their areas are policed. There are other ways of doing thatfor example, the Liberal Democrats have proposed forms of direct election, and the Conservatives have proposed the abolition of police authorities. There are different approaches. We are saying that we are moving away from direct election for the time being to give us more time to actually look at what that is. However, this measure is a significant strengthening of those powers and the ability to hold police authorities to account.

Q 174

Paul Holmes: In terms of the clauses giving the Minister power to direct certain forces to do certain things, Bob Jones, representing the Association of Police Authorities, told the Committee on Tuesday that that is an unnecessary level of mandationignoring the police authority and giving a direct instruction to a chief constable. I presume that you do not agree with that?

Mr. Coaker: No, I do not agree with that. The APA does not agree with any of the mandation parts of the Bill, but I think that mandation is a necessary part of the powers that the Bill contains. It should be available where it is clearly and patently in the public interest and the general interest of the area to move on that collaboration, not as the first resort but as the last resort.

Q 175

Paul Holmes: In that new situationif the Bill is passed, there will be a new situationwhich takes precedence if the police authority and the chief constable say, We are having regard to our local community consultation and they want us to do this, but the Minister has mandated that we do the opposite.? Which one has precedence?

Mr. Coaker: That is why we have an inspectorate. Part of it is to say to HMIC that we will be responsible for what happens in a local area and will take its advice. That happens now, without mandationwe get asked about all sorts of things that are going on in forces. Sometimes there is a disagreement between a force and the authority, and we take the advice of HMIC and make a judgment. I cannot categorically say, without actual examples, who would be right in a specific circumstancethe chief constable or the police authority. It would depend on what was actually happening in the area.

Q 176

Paul Holmes: What if both the chief constable and the police authority said, We want to do this, having regard to what people have told us in our consultation, but the Minister has mandated that we do the opposite.?

Mr. Coaker: I cannot imagine a situation where the chief constable, the police authority and other police forces agree that something is in the public interest and the Minister mandates that they do something completely oppositeopposite to something that everyone locally has agreed is in the best interest of the local community and to which HMIC has also agreed.

Q 177

Paul Holmes: Bob Jones said on Tuesday that he could not see that there was a need for a new requirement to have regard to the views of the local community. He said:
I do not think that it will make much difference.[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2009; c. 11, Q7.]
What is the point of it if it will not make much difference?

Mr. Coaker: The difference will come when the police authoritiesas we know, they will be inspected from this Aprilare specifically inspected according to the new duty that we are placing upon them. If it was only the first clause, or the first part of the clause, Bob Jones might be able to say, It will not make a differenceshow us what difference it will make. But HMIC will inspect the authorities and we will hold them to account on the basis of HMICs findings. Let us be frankI will hurry up, Sir Nicholasthe police authorities did not like direct elections because they felt that they had good partnerships, worked well in their local areas, represented their views and influenced policing. They should not be afraid of inspection now that we have taken away direct elections and placed a specific duty upon them. They should be welcoming inspection so that they can demonstrate to HMIC how well they are doing.

Nicholas Winterton: A Back Bencher on the Committee has caught my eye: Ian Cawsey. Be brief. I remind colleagues, we are allocated specific time for the various duties of the Committee and we are already exceeding it.

Q 178

Ian Cawsey: I would like to ask a couple of quick questions about police authorities and collaboration. First, is the intention of the Bill that police authorities should be more visible within their communities, play a stronger role in what the police do, or be more accountable for what they do now, which perhaps people do not understand? Or is it a combination of all of those?

Mr. Coaker: It is a combination of all of that. As I was saying to Mr. Holmes earlier, the aim is to raise the standards of some up to the standards of the best. In some areaswe can point to examples across the countrythe police authority is visible and people have some knowledge of who the chair of the authority is, and perhaps one or two other members, in their area. Members of the authority go out, they organise meetings, they have regular public-facing events and they demonstrate how they work with the police; in other areas, that is not the case. It is about having greater visibility for the police authority, so that people are more aware of who is on it, but it is also about ensuring that the public have more influence, through the authority, on how their area is policed.

Q 179

Ian Cawsey: Can I move on to collaboration? You obviously want to push collaboration as part of all of this. I chaired a police authority for four years; then, collaboration mainly took place on a number of informal, operation-based issues, or, more formally, through regional crime squads. Regional crime squads would in turn have a regional crime squad committee, which would usually comprise the chairmen of the police authorities that served that area, but it would be stretching the truth to say that there was very much input from the regional crime squad. We would go to Durham once a quarter and hear about all the operations, and there was no accountability through that. If police authorities are to be pushed more to the front on accountability and deciding what happens on the one hand, and on the other hand there is going to be more inter-force collaboration, how will you square that circle?

Mr. Coaker: In a sense, police authorities are starting to do that themselves. If you look at the situation five or 10 years ago, when we had the mergers debate, everyone fought for their own area. I think that the debate has become much more mature and that police authorities themselves are now saying, We need to work better with each other if were going to solve some of the problems that we have. Many of these measuresnotwithstanding the mandating partare at the request of the police authorities and police forces. They do not like the mandating part, because they say, We want to do this, and we can do it because things have changed. I think things have moved on.
I also think, again in the spirit of the Committee, that whatever the public spending round, we are not going to have bonuses of billions of pounds of additional money. People can also see that not only is it sensible to collaborate, but money can be savednot to go back to the Treasury, but to be reinvested in front-line services, such as murder squads, drugs squads or wherever is appropriate. Not only is an operational imperative pushing this on, but people are also saying that we can make significant savings, which will allow us to reinvest in other areas and to reprioritise. Squaring the circle is about not just what we are doing centrally, but about a change in the way in which police authorities look at the way they work.

Q 180

Ian Cawsey: So you think that authorities will be collaborating more formally?

Mr. Coaker: I think the authorities will and police forces themselves are doing that.

Ian Cawsey: The forces will do it. The question is whether they report back to anyone that they are doing it.

Mr. Coaker: That is right. The authorities will do that as well.

Nicholas Winterton: We now pass to a new subject: airport security.

David Ruffley: I will keep my remarks short, so that we get back on track.

Nicholas Winterton: I think we shall have another Minister with us, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Q 181

David Ruffley: Yes, Mr. Fitzpatrickalways a pleasure.
We heard evidence to the effect that the proposed legislation is a one-size-fits-all affair. What practical measures have you worked up with your Home Office colleagues, to prevent onerous financial burdens being put on the smaller airports and aerodromes?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We recognise that there are airports which at the moment are not contributing to the policing of their establishments, but which are going to be required to do so in due course. However, it has been clearly demonstrated, by those airports that are paying for it, that it can be done. We have created a structure where each airport can devise a security plan that fits its needs, which will mean that there will not be a one-size-fits-all system; it will be a flexible arrangement that is adequate for those airports.
There will be a 15-month introductory period between the Bill being passed and the requirement to pay, so there will be some time for the airport to make arrangements with its customers, passengers, operators and retailers regarding how that money is gathered. Although there will be a financial payment to be made, we do not think that it will be beyond airports to make it, and we think that there is enough flexibility in the system to ensure that the required security arrangements will be commensurate with the needs of the airport.

Q 182

David Ruffley: So your response to the critique that a one-size-fits-all approach will be to the disadvantage of the smaller airports and aerodromes is basically to say that the arrangements will be proportionate and that that will be a matter of common sense in the negotiations, so we do not need to worry that the clause will be applied to the smaller airports heavy-handedly?

Jim Fitzpatrick: Indeed, and we will produce guidance for airports to be able to apply. By creating a mandatory frameworkat the moment, this is voluntary and does not happen in some instanceswe will ensure an application across the country that is acknowledged and identified as appropriate. We are introducing an appeals procedure to the Secretary of State in the event of disputes, but we do not anticipate many disputes arising. As the guidance is digested by airports and as the application for each airport is identified, we believe that agreements will be reached between the police in that area and the airports, so we think that it is a very positive way forward.

Q 183

David Ruffley: I have a final question, to which the Minister of State might want to contribute, about police time and resources. Let us take the example of aerodromes and airports at which, to be frank, little policing is done. Under the arrangements before us, a local force will have to provideadmittedly for cashresources and assets to police the airport. What assessment has been made of the capacity of local forces to deliver that? It is a bit too simplistic to say, The private sector will cough up the money, so that the chief constable of force X can employ more officers and kit to deliver policing at that airport. Logically, that is easy, but in practice it is not like that, is it Minister? What discussions have been had with local forces about how they will provide those extra assets and police time, even though they are getting paid for it?

Mr. Coaker: The measures in the Bill have been drawn up in collaboration with the police, so those capacity issues and the very real concerns that you raisethey are genuine pointswere part of the discussions that took place. As I said, the police believe that, in the context of the new arrangements for airport policing, and with the resources to be made available and so on, they can police the airports appropriately.

Q 184

David Ruffley: They are quite satisfied with it and have done their planning and are thinking ahead of the game. Training and further recruitment will be necessaryall that has been sorted, has it?

Mr. Coaker: All that is part of what will need to be sorted out for the plan to be put together and made effective, when the Bill becomes law.

Jim Fitzpatrick: In terms of bringing airports into mainstream policing, we do not anticipate that the numbers or pressures will be that great. Our dispute on Tuesday about Prestwick was about whether there should be four and a half or nine officers at a relatively big airport. We are not talking about massive numbers that will impinge on any chief constables ability to perform his statutory duties.

Mr. Coaker: The point has been made that, with additional and more effective airport policing, we could reduce, or put off, some harmful criminality coming in through airports.

Jim Fitzpatrick: In many instances, the police are there already undertaking such duties, but they are not being paid for by the airport operators. They are already in situ, and they have already been recruited and trained to do the job.

Q 185

Paul Holmes: The two witnesses from the Airport Operators Association suggested that an alternative offering financial economies of scale was to let the British Transport police take on the job. Does that idea have any merit? Has that been considered?

Jim Fitzpatrick: It has been considered and dismissed as inappropriate, for a number of reasons. Some simple ones are: in the event of a demonstration at an airport, the British Transport police would police the airport and the local constabulary would have to be outside. Furthermore, the British Transport police have no armed capability, so if you need armed officers within the airport you would need to train BTP officers, which would mean bringing in a whole new capacity. Where there was a requirement for the local force to come in to supplement security because of a particular threat you might have a command and control conflict, because you would have two different forces serving the airport. The idea has been looked at, but it was felt that what we needed was mainstream policing and the chief constable to be involved with the local risk assessment and the local airport. It was not considered appropriate but it has been considered.

Q 186

Paul Holmes: The AOA witnesses also expressed concern about every airport having to have armed police. To me the terrorist potential of a crowded airport lobby would suggest that you need armed police. What are your thoughts?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We do not think that is an obligatory or mandatory requirement. We do think that having the risk assessment group review the needs of each airport will determine what is required at each airport. We do not think it obligatory for every airport to have an armed detachment. It will be for the senior managers of the airport and the local constabulary to make an assessment and then work out what is appropriate for them.

Q 187

Paul Holmes: Finally, do we know when the draft code of practice on how all this will operate and how decisions will be taken is going to be published?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We informally gave sight of it to all stakeholders in November 2008 so it is informally in the domain. We will be listening to comments and will produce it later this year. Clearly, Royal Assent being given to the legislation will give us the impetus to move forward but it will be later this year.

Nicholas Winterton: I will call Dr. Evan Harris, but we are running ten minutes behind our schedule.

Q 188

Evan Harris: I just have a quick question on the aspect of the Bill dealing with airport security. I was wondering, given what has happened in respect of the airbase at Diego Garcia, whether the Government were having new thoughts about amending the Aviation Security Act 1982 to allow searches of planes where the Secretary of State has a reason to suspect extraordinary rendition? We have had a briefing to that effect from Liberty, which I suspect you or your officials have seen. It has come up previously in Bills such as this but it has not found favour.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not sighted on that one but my understanding is that it has not been considered.

Q 189

Nicholas Winterton: The right to search an aircraft?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I understand that it has not been considered, but I can feed back to Dr. Harris and the Committee, once I have had a chance to do some more research.

Q 190

Nicholas Winterton: If you communicate with Dr. Evan Harris, will you please communicate with every Member of the Committee?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As I said, I will do that.

Nicholas Winterton: Thank you. We now move on to an area to which we are allocating perhaps the largest amount of time and that is prostitution.

Q 191

David Ruffley: In that spirit, I will take proportionately the shortest amount of time because I have only two questions for the Minister of State.
The first picks up on what Shami Chakrabarti said in this mornings session, which was that strict liability is a blunt tool. She said that an alternative way of clamping down on this abhorrent trade of trafficking females was to have an offence with intent imported into itshe suggested recklessness or negligence. On the strict liability drafting, did you, with your officials and legal advisers, give consideration to what Ms Chakrabarti said was possible, that is, an element of intent? If not, why not?

Mr. Coaker: My colleague, Alan Campbell, will say some things on prostitution but Mr. Ruffley asks me directly so I will respond to this question.
Without taking too much of the Committees time, it is necessary to say that the legislation we are proposing marks a fundamental shift in the way we try to tackle this problem. That is what I said to Ms Chakrabarti this morning. It is not about banning prostitution. It is about trying to turn it around and say, let us stop for ever talking about the womenas much as we need to in terms of improving services, trying to prevent them entering prostitution in the first place, and so on. Let us for a complete change focus on men and the responsibility they have in this area. I am not ignoring the question that was directly asked; I shall come to it.
Interestingly, we have started to debate the issue in that way without being laughed out of court. I make that point everywhere I go. You can argue that if two, four, six, eight, 10 or whatever number of years ago, we had started to say that we need to look at the male side of the problem, people would have trashed it and said, This is ridiculous. Prostitution has existed for centuries, you are not going to change anything, and so on. I think that there has been a shift in the debate, and to be fair to the shadow Policing Minister, he and his Front-Bench colleagues have said that they are considering their response. That is a change, tooall of us are now wrestling with the problem.
The next question is, what sort of offence do you create if you are talking about the men? In a sense, you are trying to change the current dynamic whereby a man purchasing sex in most instancesmost, not all; I do not want to decry everybodythinks, Ill purchase the sex. They do not think, Is this somebody who is exploited? We have talked about trafficking, but we are also talking about women who are exploited, used, controlled and forced by violent partners. In no sense can that be regarded as a free choice.
We then started to explore the matter and thought about how to create a situation in which men, instead of acting with impunity, are put in a position where, at the very least, they are concerned about the consequences of their action. I am often told that there is no problem and we should just prosecute them for rape, but how many times has anybody been prosecuted for rape? Who really believes that the alternative to what has been suggestedI am not saying that Mr. Ruffley said thisis to prosecute them for rape? So, we thought in our discussions that the strict liability offence was necessary.
Mr. Ruffley asked whether you need intentwhether it is recklessness.

Q 192

David Ruffley: Was that considered in policy terms?

Mr. Coaker: All the various issues were consideredwhether you just had an offence of having sex with a trafficked woman, or with someone who was forced to work as a prostitute. We thought that if we were really going to make a difference, rather than introduce something cosmetic that made everyone feel good but did not drive down to that particular interaction, we would need something far stronger. That is why we have gone for the strict liability offence. The point that Julie Kirkbride made this morning is the one that we in the Home Office have had a considerable debate about. Clearly, the difference between lawyers is on how you define controlled for gain. We will need to consider that point in Committee, but that is how we arrived at the strict liability offence.

Q 193

Evan Harris: We can agree on the aim, but, at the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we had an exchange about how you deal with men, when I asked whether the Government were considering something similar to the scheme in Italy, where there is a hotline for punters to report abuses. They are encouraged to do so, and, to make it work, they do not criminalise; they think that you will get better harm reduction and more convictions by that method. You may recall that we had an exchange when the Committee showed evidence from our visit that there are 100 times more prosecutions for trafficking and 100 times more women are savedon the raw figures. People have considered the demand side and how men can be approached, but to what extent did you consider that option when formulating your policy? There is not much reference to it in the Tackling Demand for Prostitution review document.

Mr. Coaker: We considered it. At the JCHR Committee we had a number of exchanges, but we certainly had a constructive exchange. I have been to Sweden and the Netherlands, we have done a literature review, and we looked at research and evidenceI know you were raising that point the other day, and had considered different studiesand all those different things. At the end of the day, if you are ever in government, you will make judgments about what you consider to be the most appropriate. That is what it comes down to in the end. You have all of those options, you consider them, and you make a judgment about what you think will have an effect.
I know that there is the argument that, if you have a strict liability offence, it will affect the fact that there are all these men queuing up to phone in and let the police know that they think that there is somebody being trafficked or exploited. It is not just trafficking; it is people who are forced into it through violence and a dependence on drugs. All of those sorts of things are also examples of somebody being exploited and who cannot, in any sense of the word, be expected or considered to have made a free choice. So, we have considered all of these things, and, in the end, it comes back to what I said to Mr. Ruffley: if you really want to make a difference, rather than have something which is cosmetic and makes everyone feel good, you have to get down there and drive into that.

Evan Harris: That is my point exactly. If you have to make a judgment

Mr. Coaker: We have.

Q 194

Evan Harris: Yes, you have to make a judgment. Would the judgment not be based on evidence? You said that you looked at the evidence in your review, but, actually, the review of the evidence has not, as I understand it, even been published yet.

Mr. Coaker: No, it has not been published yet.

Q 195

Evan Harris: So, here we are considering making laws, and you are asserting that you are making what I assume is an evidence-based decision. We cannot see that evidence. On the contrary, we have had suggestions, from the Royal College of Nursing and, in particular, NHS workers, that the evidence suggests that what you are doing, though well intentioned, would be counter-productive in terms of reporting and harm reduction. Does that not give you pause, at least?

Mr. Coaker: We are looking at publishing the evidence. As I say, and I will let Alan come in now as this is his policy area, you pick the evidence which, in the end, backs your argument. If you listen to what the Poppy Project said, it was the complete opposite. That is what I am saying about judgments. You consider what you think is the best way to tackle the problem, and that is what we have done.

Mr. Campbell: There is wide discussion about the effect that this offence would have on men who might come across women whom they believe have been, or have evidence that they have been, trafficked. It might deter them from coming forward.
I asked officials to look into that and they could not find any concrete example of where that is the case. However, in answer to the very first point that you made, I am genuinely interested in how this could be facilitated, perhaps through an anonymous hotline. It would be difficult to say that someone, who came forward after having been to a prostitute that had been trafficked, would be treated and dealt with differently within the law because they then furnished the evidence or the suggestion that the womanpredominantly, it is a womanhad been trafficked. So, I am open to the suggestion of some anonymous line.
What struck me out of all the evidence that we have taken or listened to over the last few days, Sir Nicholas, was the point from the Poppy Project. They said that they had evidence of men who brought forward, or, at least, pushed in their direction, women whom they believed had been trafficked. There were 22 such cases, but in each of the cases the men, either believing or knowing that the women had been trafficked, still had sex with them.
That will probably be the thing which I will take away from these sessions more than anything else. It goes back to what my colleague has said. There is an unfairness in the situation where raids have taken place around trafficking, which is not just an international issue but a domestic issue, tooit happens within countries as well as between countries. We know where the law stands on traffickers and what will happen to women in those circumstances. But there is a gap in the law. What happens to the man who has been there? We have decidedafter, I can assure you, a very long and thorough considerationthat we are in the right place on strict liability. Difficult though it is, we are in the right place.

Q 196

Evan Harris: Did you do any research asking men, through, for example, punters websites or indeed outreach work? It is possible to reach men; the NHS does it all of the time because they are reaching prostitutes. Did you do any research, published or otherwise, that suggested whether men were more likely either to desist or to report under each of the regimes: the status quo, the proposed regime, or a different regime whereby you would fund a hotline, outreach work and exit strategies for women whom the men knew they could then help?

Mr. Campbell: As I say, we keep our options open on a hotline and funding. We would certainly look at examples from elsewhere to see how it would help. Of course, we test each of the propositions against as much evidence as we can collect. The evidence from some countries is that where, for example, there is a similar measure to the one we are proposing, it has a deterrent effect. It has a deterrent effect in the first place. Of course, we have to consider whether, in the case of men who are closely involved with prostitutes and have been to prostitutes, that will colour their decision about bringing forward evidence. What we are after is something that is also important, which is to deter them in the first place by putting it into their minds that unless they are absolutely sure, then they should not do it.

Q 197

Evan Harris: I do not want to labour this point and this is my last question on this issue. Is it not appropriate and good practice to publish the evidence upon which you base a policy which you then claim has evidence behind it? Otherwise, it is mere assertion and your assertion is as good as my assertion. Yours is probably better than mine on this.

Mr. Campbell: We have had the demand review, which was a long and lengthy process. There was a collection of evidence, which has now been collated. It was not a formal consultation. We never said that the evidence we collected would be published. We are collating it now. If we decide to publish it then we will do so in due course, but we should not read too much into the fact that the evidence has not been published. It does not mean that it contradicts the propositions that the Government are bringing forward.

Q 198

Evan Harris: May I probe a little further what Mr. Coaker said in respect of what was raised this morning by Julie Kirkbride and myself? Would a definition of controlled for gain be better if it was different according to the nature of the crime that is involved? So child pornography controlling for gain could be wider than pimping might be, and wider than the strict liability offence of having sex with someone who is controlled for gain. At the moment, as I understand it, that definition is only that provided by the case law, most recently the Court of Appeal in Massey.

Mr. Coaker: There will be a debate as we go through Committee about the definition of controlled for gain. If we can get that right, which I think will be possible, then some of the concerns that some people havenot everyone has themwill disappear to a certain extent. As I pointed out to Ms Chakrabarti this morning, this is not a back-door way of trying to ban prostitution; it is trying to get at exploitation. We all agree with that. I do not suggest that anyone here is in favour of exploitation. This is about trying to have public policy that addresses that. In answer to Julie Kirkbrides question, Peter Lodder from the Bar Council said that he would look at making a helpful suggestion here. We can consider that. The problem with controlled for gain is that, as I am told by other lawyers, the control aspect is the ordinary, common-sense, dictionary understanding of the word. In the case of R v. Steven Massey in 2007, just to be lawyer-like Sir Nicholas

Evan Harris: 4 December.

Mr. Coaker: Yes, 4 December. I am told that control within the meaning of the Sexual Offences Act should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning of directing a relevant activity that included, but was not limited to, individuals who forced another to carry out a relevant activity. That case law meets peoples concerns that control would mean something other than the ordinary definition which we all understand. I am not a lawyer so, at the end of the day, we will no doubt get Mr. Lodders suggestions and there will be other lawyers who say something different. But the objective we all share is certainly along the lines that we have been discussing and which Julie Kirkbride raised this morning.

Q 199

Evan Harris: Were you concerned at all by what the support workers association said? Many support workers are Government or NHS-funded to publish their academic work on prostitutes. The association, the Royal College of Nursing and the International Union of Sex Workers talked about the possibility, arising from the series of proposals in the Bill, that we will drive women further away from the police and therefore integrate a risk. That is their view. I wondered if that gave you any cause for concern?

Mr. Campbell: There is no darker place to drive them if they have been brought intotraffickedthis country for sexual exploitation, so let us not in any way suggest that this is an easy decision that does not require action.

Q 200

Evan Harris: I am sorry, I did not mean that groupI meant the group beyond that group. I absolutely share your view that that position cannot be any worse.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, but we need to remain focused as far as we can on the intent of what we are doing, which is to have something in place to tackle the kind of exploitationwhether trafficked women, internally trafficked women or notthat we all agree is wrong. Our view is that our definition, controlled for gain, does not apply outside the group we are trying to address in the legislation. Therefore, many of the concerns raised by the International Union of Sex Workers and others will prove to be unfounded. It is not about whether someone can employ a maid, or employ someone to give them greater protection and safety in what they do. Our strong advice is that our proposal will not affect that situation, unless there is clear and demonstrable evidence of control.

Q 201

Evan Harris: What about a madam?

Mr. Campbell: We could get into every single different example here. I know that we try to put them into different classes, and it would rather depend on what she was. If she was keeping the diary and providing cups of tea, it would be hard to suggest that she was somehow controlling the prostitute. That is not what the case law says that it ought to be aboutit ought to be about the prostitutes being forced into it. It is the absence of free will.

Q 202

Evan Harris: That is helpful, because that goes beyond the case law, but we can come back to it.
Finally, as we heard in some of the oral and from the written evidence, the law-enforcement approach is an incomplete one without funding and mechanisms to provide outreach for exit work. It is one-handed, and it might not work, according to that view, whereas many feel people stronglyalthough we recognise that some of them would benefit from such fundingthat there would be enormous merit in providing more of a funding stream for exit out of drugs and exit into employment or different accommodation, such as shelters, refuges and so forth.

Mr. Campbell: It is of course the Governments policy to have a comprehensive approach, which is not just about the enforcement of the law but about supporting women who want to get out of prostitution. We have heard many different assessments of a womans motivationthe reason why she might be involved in prostitutionfrom those who claim clearly that it is entirely a matter of free will and has nothing to do with us, to those who say that there are women out there who have no free will or choice in this because they have been trafficked, while somewhere in the middle there are women who feel that they have no alternative because of their socio-economic, personal or family circumstances, and they choose to go into prostitution on that basis. Our approach would not be defensible unless we were prepared to say that there has to be that other pillar.
One of the reasons for this, if we are reducing demand, is the expectation that there would be fewer women involved in prostitution. So, what will be in place for them? Briefly, three things, the first being that we already fund a lot of work, not least through the POPPY projectsome £5.8 millionbut that is just part of it. Alsoand this is perhaps where we might want to get to with rehabilitation orderswe have to access the other resources out there. We heardI cannot remember from which witnessa list of housing, family income, education, all of those things. I thought that we had things in place for every citizen on housing, support for families, education and health care, so how can they better access those services? However, I am not discounting the fact that there may well be additional things that we would need to do for women who had been involved in prostitution because they have a particular set of circumstances and often very chaotic lives.

Nicholas Winterton: We are already over time on this area of our discussion, but there are three lady members of the Committee who wish to put questions. Can I ask them to do so and perhaps specify who they would like to reply? Would they also put the questions together so that, if there is any overlap, they can all be dealt with in one response by the relevant Minister? I am calling Lynda Waltho first, then Julie Kirkbride and then Nadine Dorries.

Q 203

Lynda Waltho: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. Strictly speaking, I think it should be Alan Campbell who responds, although I think that Vernon Coaker has been around the world to view different systems, so it is up to them to decide. The lady who gave evidence for the English Collective of Prostitutes suggested that we ought to look at complete decriminalisation, which is the experience in New Zealand.
I have information from Debbie Baker, the manager of Streetreach, a support service for street workers, in New Zealand. She says that
although there has been decriminalisation it hasnt really made a difference to the average girl out on the street, except there is more competition and the prices have gone down...We...have seen an increase in underage children working in prostitution; there are girls under the age of 18.
It is obvious to me that it has not worked in New Zealand, but what stopped you from going for complete decriminalisation?

Q 204

Julie Kirkbride: I would like to ask two quick questions, if I may. The POPPY project wants the abolition of prostitution. It thinks that prostitution should not be allowed, period, and that you should not be allowed to sell your body for sex, end of story. Why not just go for that? One of the other things that the collective was saying was that, under the previous legislation, the phrase controlling...for gain encouraged the police to raid a variety of premises on the basis that there was a madam there, because it fell within the definition of controlling...for gain even if it did not fall within the intent of the legislation. Given that that is its experience, and that your catch-all provision would potentially criminalise many people who are doing something which most of us think is their right to do, if that is what they want, are you not worried that previous experience of the legislation is that it is a big catch-all under which the police have been carrying out raids which were not necessarily the intention of the original legislation?

Q 205

Nadine Dorries: I am not sure why this part of the Bill is here at all. I do not believe that most men who go to procure the services of a prostitute have a great understanding of the law. They probably do not have a cluethey just decide to procure those services, and they go and do it because it is so easily and readily available. I also think that societys attitudes have changed towards that particular industry anyway. Given that the evidence we have heard says that this Bill will categorically make life considerably worse for some of the most vulnerable peoplethose prostitutes who are in the business as a result of a need, whether drug use, poor circumstances, poor background, being coerced into it, o whateverwhy are we doing it?

Mr. Campbell: We have looked at a lot of different examples. As Lynda Waltho said, Mr. Coaker knows more than I about examples abroad. Even in this Committee, we have touched on the very wide debate between those who say that we should decriminalise and those who say we should criminalise prostitution. Like Lynda Waltho, I have received a very mixed picture from New Zealand, and I have heard that the law has had unintended and horrific consequences. This part of the legislation is quite specific. I repeat: we must remain focused on the intention, which is to tackle the problems for trafficked women and, indeed, others of sexual exploitation. We are not starting with the proposition that the Government say that prostitution should be illegal or legal. We are focusing on a particular issue and in so doing we have to be careful that we do not send out the wrong message about how we believe society sees prostitution.
The raids on brothels could not have taken place under these provisions because, of course, the provisions are not yet law. I suspect that when we tease out some of those examples, there are other reasons why those raids took place and, indeed, why some of the closures took place. We want this measure and existing legislation to be used proportionately. I do not share the belief that the police set out to act other than in a proportionate fashion, and I do not share the view that somehow the police chose to do something that was outside the guidance that they already had. They would certainly not choose to do something that is outside the spirit of the law.

Mr. Coaker: Nadine Dorriess point about men not considering the law when they pay for sex is probably true because nothing happens. That is the point I was trying to make at the beginning. If we actuallyand this has been the whole focus of the work that others and I have been doing over the past year or sotackle the demand side of the issue, we have to look at how you deal with that. As I said, you are quite right to say that the men do not think about it, because nothing happens. Put a strict a liability offence in there.

Q 206

Nadine Dorries: Do you think they will know?

Mr. Coaker: They will certainly know with a strict liability offence, because they will know that they cannot excuse themselves by saying, Hey, Id have phoned the police if Id only known. We have put that element of doubt in there so that people cannot act with impunity. I am not being rude about people, but we have seen the pictures and we know what happens. If people think they are going somewhere where there clearly is at least a doubt about what is going on and they just carry on regardless, a serious change to the law will make people stop and think twice. That is an important public policy reform, which will mean that we can start to try to tackle the exploitation that exists.
Julie Kirkbride raised the question of why we did not go the whole hog and make it completely illegal to pay for sex full stop. We thought that that was impractical and was not based in the real world. When we went to Sweden, it seemedagain, there are doubts about this because you get different evidence from people who are equally well meaningthat the issue had been driven away and gone underground. Some people in Sweden disagree fundamentally with what I have just said, but that is the conclusion that I reached.

Q 207

Julie Kirkbride: This is the real world in which the people to whom we are rightly trying to reach are women who have been trafficked and who are terrified of their pimp and everything else. Goodness knows, but I suspect that the kind of people who go and visit those women are not particularly cognisant of the law and possibly do not even care about it. Who is going to shop them? The police should be raiding these establishments anyway. How are we going to find such people? Two days later, the DNA evidence of what they might have been doing has gone. I do not understand how they are going to be shopped.
I can see, however, that the pensioner who goes along to see Mrs. Bloggs occasionally and suddenly finds himself criminalised because Mrs. Bloggs was running an establishment that was not approved under the law will suddenly get a criminal offence and be shamed in his community. On practical grounds, I worry whether the Bill will really get the person who you are looking for.

Mr. Campbell: Let me make two points: first, there is an information point about people being aware of the law. It is incumbent on us, if there is a strict liability, to make people aware of that, even though it is no defence for them to say that they did not know. The pensioner who visits Mrs. Bloggs should be aware of that, and we should make every effort to make them aware of it. However, the issue of who Mrs. Bloggs has in her back bedroom, where they have come from, and the reasons why they are being forced to do what they are doing, is still there.

Mr. Coaker: Also, there is the fact that brothels up and down the country in the cities that some of us represent are raided by the police, but afterwards nothing happens. They go and rescue women, some of whom are trafficked and some of whom, but not all, are forced into prostitution in other ways. What responsibilities do the men have who go there? That is the question that we are forcing on to the public policy agenda to get people to confront. The answer up until now has been a shrug of the shoulders. It has been, You cant do anything about it. Prosecute them for rape if you are saying there was no consent. Sometimes, that is totally unrealistic, as you will know. Where a woman has been forced into that situation there is a sort of consent because she does not say, No, you cant, but she does not do so because she is terrified. As lawyers have said to me: Prove it in court, thenthat its rape There was not really resistance, because someone was terrified. There is an information issue, but it will really change the dynamic in terms of how people react to, and think about, that, and it will start to get at the exploitation.
On Lyndas point about decriminalisation, it is absolutely right that the evidence is coming back from New Zealand, and, again, different people say different things. However, the sort of evidence that Lynda Waltho referred talks about increases in young people involved in prostitution, increases in exploitation and increases in the numbers involved. All those sorts of things are going on.
There is another argument, while we are discussing different models. I went to Amsterdam: what are the Dutch Government doing? They are considering reducing the numbers of controlled areas, because they are concerned about the increase in the exploitation of young women, and about serious and organised crime. There has been a fundamental reduction in the number of the famous red light windows, because of the concern about serious and organised crime and so on. That is in Holland, which is always held up as an exampleWhy dont we do what Holland does?but it is having the same public policy debate that we are having.
You can tell the seriousness of the situation, because in country after country across the world, people are looking at what we should do about it. I will finish with this, because it is such a fundamental point. You have to change the dynamic of how the man thinks when he purchases the sex. You can have a cosmetic offence, which will make no difference, or you can say, Im going to make a real difference and try to change that dynamic. That is the choice that people have got.

Nicholas Winterton: Thank you. We must now move on to another part of the Bill. The time allocated is going to have to be dramatically reduced if we are going to get through all the subjects, as there are three more. We begin with alcohol.

Q 208

James Brokenshire: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I will be as brief and succinct as possible.
There are two lines of questioning that I would like to pursue. The first relates to the code of practice, and the two parts of the mandatory code. Will Mr. Campbell, as the Minister responsible, tell us which parts of the mandatory code that have already been published by the Department of Health are likely to be included in the final version?

Mr. Campbell: There are discussions taking place between the relevant Departments. I understand that they have come to broad agreements on which parts will be included and which not. We will bring those forward, and will also deal with the question of whether or not they will be part of the mandatory or the voluntary code.

Q 209

James Brokenshire: Will you give some clarification, because at this stage none of us has seen the code provisions or their final form? Are they likely to be materially different from the code that was released? Whether it was for consultation or otherwise is a matter for wider debate.

Mr. Campbell: I have not seen the final form yet, because it is under discussion. We are starting, probably as we speak, with some preliminary discussions across the industry to make sure that before we go to formal consultation we have the broad headings that people can sign up to. I am not sure whether you are alluding to a particular aspect, and asking me whether it is in or out.

Q 210

James Brokenshire: I suppose the point that I am trying to make is that at this stage we can only, as a Committee, look at what has been released to date. The Department of Health released the document. You can argue as to whether that has been helpful or unhelpful in this context, because all we can say is, Well, we can look at that. Are there any specific issues that you would like to mention to the Committee at the outset to help us consider the provisions in the Bill, or are there any conditions that you believe should be included in the code, albeit that they might need to be drafted, finalised or finessed?

Mr. Campbell: I can give some general guidance. We would want to see some of the things that were discussed during the earlier evidence sessions, including for example, provisions on vertical drinking establishments; on buy as much as you want for however much promotions; and on things that encourage people to drink faster than a social activity would suggestin other words things that go out of their way to encourage drunkenness and the behaviour that goes with it. Those are the broad headings that we are looking at.

Q 211

James Brokenshire: Would they include, for example, introducing Think 21 or Challenge 25 policies as a mandatory requirement under these provisions?

Mr. Campbell: Think 21 and Challenge 25 are very good examples of how we are working in partnership with the industry, which is bringing forward these ideas. Challenge 21 or Think 21 would perhaps be more applicable in these circumstances. My understanding is, however, that it would be difficult to put them in a quasi-legal situation, as it is not something you could hold people to account for. You can hold them to account for being under-age or for selling to people under 18. It is much more difficult to frame provisions dealing with issues such as whether someone looks as if they are under 18, or between 18 and 21. As you know, Challenge 25 came out because of the difficulty of distinguishing 19, 20 and 21-year-olds from people who are under 18.

Q 212

James Brokenshire: Time is short and we can explore these issues further in Committee, but some views have been expressed that some licensing conditions are seeking to promote Think 21 or Challenge 25, and people are concerned that you are creating two age-test requirements. Do you recognise that as a problem?

Mr. Campbell: It has been put to me by the industry that Challenge 25 is a kind of gold standard. It is easier to do for some of the big retailers than it is for some of the smaller and independent retailers. We are encouraging people to adopt that. My advice is that it would be extremely difficult to try to encompass that in some kind of legal framework; in fact it would not be possible.

Q 213

James Brokenshire: That is helpful. You mentioned small businesses and I come back to the statement in the regulatory impact assessment that
there is the potential for significant transitional costs, including job losses and the closure of small businesses.
We heard evidence during the week that that might be quite significant, particularly for smaller businesses. What discussions have you undertaken with Ministers or officials in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform about the extent and nature of that, and any mitigation?

Mr. Campbell: Not only have we had communication with Ministers from those Departments but I have met and discussed the matter with industry representatives as well. We are very conscious of our obligations, particularly from an enforcement point of view for the Home Office, and from a health point of view for the Department of Health, with DBERR and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport bringing their own view to bear. It is part of the wider discussions. The Government are very aware of the issues, some of which were raised in an earlier session, particularly in the economic circumstances, but not exclusively for those reasons. We certainly would not want to impose a burden either on on-sales or off-sales. However, there has to be, as I think there is, a growing recognition of a problem that is not going away. Along with the right to be consulted and our influencethe burden that might be appliedthere is a responsibility for everyone involved to make sure they are doing everything they can.

Q 214

James Brokenshire: Let us come on to offences, namely the creation of new offences and the strengthening of certain offences. In principle, I have no objection to giving the police powers that they need. Which things were not working as well as you had expected in order to require these sorts of changes to take place?

Mr. Campbell: I was struck by the evidence from the chief constable in a previous session. He gave the impression, quite rightly, that it is a case of building on what has gone before and making sure that it works. You will be as aware as I am that when we draft and pass legislation it does not always have the full effect that we intended. Some of it is about balancing offences and penalties with what already exists in other areas, for example what should happen if a person does not leave and follow the direction of a police officer, and, therefore, what is appropriate both as a deterrent but also as a penalty.
One of the real difficulties relates to age difference and the fact that when people buy alcohol under age, or have it bought for them, they are often in mixed-age gangsit is possible for older people to buy the drink and share it among the gang. If police are called to an incident, it is not always possible to treat all of the people in that gang, or group of people, similarly. For example, it might not be possible to confiscate the alcohol from everybody or send them all home, or whatever the punishment happens to be. It is a case of trying to acknowledge the practical difficulties that the police are telling us aboutwhich have been reiterated by the chief constablethat I think lies behind these measures.

Q 215

James Brokenshire: One final question as we are pressed for time. You will be aware of the advice given this morning by the Governments chief medical officer who said that, in essence, children under the age of 16 should not consume any alcohol. I refer to the clause headed Offence of persistently possessing alcohol in public place, under which alcohol possession without reasonable excuse is in essence being prohibited. Are you therefore saying that any consumption of alcohol in a public place by a child under 16 is captured by the clause?

Mr. Campbell: No, what we are saying is that we need some kind of measurement as to when the proposal should be brought in. It is persistence that we are identifying hereit is not acknowledging that the first time nothing should be done. It is this idea of persistence. I did not agree with a witness today who seemed to give the impression that these things happen anyway and we should not be too worried about a someone under age, with alcohol, for a third offence.

Q 216

James Brokenshire: Obviously, the persistence requires you to be able to prove reasonable excuse in the first place. All I am suggesting is that the language at the moment is so broad that it could almost capture a child with their parent consuming alcohol.

Mr. Campbell: Unless you are telling me that somehow we are going to move on from the advice of the chief medical officer today and incorporate that in what we are saying, all I would say here is that advisers advise and Government decide. The example that I prefer is of a child helping a parent who has bought some wine or beer in a supermarket to carry it to the car, although the child was not old enough to have bought it. They will not be held accountable by a police officer in a car park saying, This is the third time I have seen you doing that. This is precisely not where we want to be, but I do not think this is what we are discussing and it is not the area that this offence is meant to address.

Q 217

Paul Holmes: As for the mandatory alcohol licensing controlsare you planning that these measures will, first, deal with happy hours and all sorts of offers on licensed premises, and secondly, with the price of loss-leading alcohol in supermarkets, as well as cheap strong lagers and white ciders and so on, in off-sales?

Mr. Campbell: It is a very contentious area, and all I can say is that we do not have any plans to bring forward minimum pricing at this stage, although whether that will be appropriate is still being discussed. That is partly because of the evidence we have commissioned, which suggests that it does not have the effect on peoples behaviour that one might think. It is not the kind of lever which it is assumed to be. Of course, what we have to do is make sure that this is proportionate and balanced. What we do not wantwhat I certainly do not want to dois to penalise a hard-working person who goes to the supermarket to buy one or two bottles of wine, which may be on offer, to enjoy socially with their family over the weekend. That is precisely where we do not want to be.

Paul Holmes: Is the evidence that you refer to published or internal?

Mr. Campbell: I think it is Sheffield universitys evidence. I will check if it is published or not

Mr. Coaker: It is.

Q 218

Sally Keeble: This question is for Alan Campbell. You mentioned a few times that you had discussions with the industry over the formulation of the mandatory code. This is an issue of massive public concern. Which public consumer groups and interest groups have you had discussions with on the drawing up of the proposals for the mandatory code?

Mr. Campbell: We have had on-going discussions

Sally Keeble: With whom?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot list them, but I can assure you that it has not simply been with the industry. We have had discussions with a number of groups. Alcohol Concern comes to mind.

Q 219

Sally Keeble: Alcohol Concern, yes indeed. But the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the British Medical Association and the Police Federation, among others, also have real concerns about this issue. Have you had discussions with them about what might be in the mandatory code?

Mr. Campbell: The point is that we have had extensive discussions, but I assure you that we will continue to have such discussions, because we are in the process of drawing up the kind of areas we want to see in those codes. We will continue to have the widest possible consultation, but the evidence suggests that the public are absolutely convinced that we need a mandatory code. They may have a different view of what they want in it, but there was overwhelming evidence from the work we did to suggest that they want a mandatory code.

Q 220

Sally Keeble: This is an issue about consultation. The pre-consultation consultation, as it werethe consultation about what you are going to put forwardis absolutely critical. A large number of groups support minimum pricing, on which I had a private Members Bill, and action on in-store promotions, as well as restrictions on clubs and on labelling. If the views on what should be consulted on are taken predominantly from the industryyou have mentioned one and only one voluntary grouphow will you ensure that the proposals that are consulted on, which ultimately will shape the mandatory code, will actually reflect the public anxiety over this?

Mr. Campbell: My point about consulting the industry was in direct response to a question about the burden that might be imposed on the industry, so to say that we were listening to them seemed to be the obvious reassurance that I could give. We have consulted and continue to consult with people, and there will be further consultation on these matters. But we are, within Government, looking at the kind of areas that we can get sign-up to between Departments, in the context not only of discussions taking place within and between Departments, but also of discussions that Departments have with others all the time. We hope that it is a dynamic process.

Q 221

Sally Keeble: I come now to the impact of pricing on drinking levels. I thought that it was the Department of Health that commissioned the Sheffield review, which showed that price and availability did have an impact on consumption. I just wonder why that then has to be revisited. Were there some shortcomings within the research, which I thought was very thorough in terms of the impact of price and availability on consumption and responsible consumption?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, my recollection of this is that there would have to be a very dramatic increase in price to affect consumption in the way that we were talking about and, therefore, the evidence supports the view that it is a fairly blunt lever. It is not the only way forward by any means, and may not be the best way forward to get the result we want. However, I am under no illusion at all that, were we to bring forward a code that does not have minimum pricing in it, there will not be those who will say, That is a terrible thing. You ought to have done this. It does not matter how much consultation we have done.

Q 222

Sally Keeble: There are a couple of further points.

Nicholas Winterton: There is not much time left.

Sally Keeble: I will be quick. First, will you accept an invitation to launch an online consultation? You need not answer now; I am just putting down a marker. Secondly, do you accept that a number of the other recommendations in the legislation are about dealing with problem drinking by young people in public places, some of which is driven by the cheapest and most disgusting drinks going, like the white cider stuff, and that minimum pricing would do something about managing those incredibly problematic products? It might not deal with quite a lot of drinking, but the point is to tackle the worst offenders and deal with the public disorder consequences.

Mr. Campbell: I understand that, but there are other things that need to be taken into consideration too. For example, the problem is not just about price; it is about volume. It is about offers that create the circumstances in which people might purchase and consume more than they otherwise would. There is also the much wider issue of access for under-age drinkers in the first place. Whatever the price, what can we do to prevent sales to under-age peoplefull stop?

Q 223

Sally Keeble: Okay; and the invitation?

Mr. Campbell: I shall certainly consider it carefully.

Nicholas Winterton: Three people have indicated that they want to ask questions on this subject; I shall take all three together and if they are for Mr. Campbell he can, I hope, deal with them quite quickly. The members are Simon Burns, Lynda Waltho, who indicated earlier that she wanted to come in on this subject, and Ian Cawsey.

Q 224

Simon Burns: Does Mr. Campbell agree that using the pricing mechanism is not the simple panacea that some people think, because of course successive Chancellors under a series of Governments have used that policy on cigarette pricing, and there has been not a dramatic reduction in the number of people smoking but a significant increase in a smuggling problem that did not exist before?

Q 225

Ian Cawsey: I have two very quick questions. First, I would be interested to know what the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers has been on the proposals. SecondlyI do not know whether the Minister wants to come back to me on this laterschedule 4 introduces general licence conditions relating to alcohol, and it is very specific about the use of the word alcohol. However, in the schedule a number of general conditions are introduced for licensing authorities to bring into effect. The Minister said earlier that sometimes laws bring unintended effects. I have had contact with a few colleagues in the music business and live entertainment, and they want to be assured that the provisions in a part of the Bill that is supposed to relate to alcohol do not inadvertently make it possible to clamp down on live entertainment and music in our local neighbourhoods.

Q 226

Lynda Waltho: Most of the matters that I am concerned about have been covered, except for one, which is the need for a central register of licensees, which I brought up in my speech originally. It is entirely possible and highly likely that licensees who lose their licence in one authority will just pop up in another, and that there will be no co-ordination.

Mr. Campbell: Briefly, in answer to Mr. Burnss point, I was saying that that was the general conclusion that the university of Sheffield had come to, which is why we keep the matter under consideration, but we have not made a decision on that. Of course pricing is part of the success that we have had on smoking, but it is only part of it. I accept that. I am not sure you can draw a direct comparison between the pricing of cigarettes and the pricing of alcohol, but I am sure that there are some related areas.
ACPOs view was set out clearly by Mr. Craik in the earlier sitting, when he said that it supports the broad approach that includes both mandatory and voluntary elements. I am sure we will continue to have discussions with them on the detail. I have never heard the pointalthough I am sure I will as the Bill progressesabout the possible impact on music. All I know from previous legislation is that those concerned are extraordinarily good at campaigning on this issue, so I am sure we will hear from them.
I am very interested in the central register of licensees, with the proviso that we do not over-regulate and overburden the industry.

Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the Minister on his succinctness in replying. We are very grateful. I think that I shall take the next two areas together, as I know that Her Majestys Opposition spokesman wishes to deal with proceeds of crime and extradition together. I shall then call Paul, and any other member of the Committee who wants to ask a question, but we must finish at 3 oclock. People now know exactly what time we have left.

Q 227

James Brokenshire: Some of the controversial elements of the proceeds of crime provisions relate to changes in judicial oversight or, for example, with respect to the forfeiture without court order elements, the complete removal of judicial oversight. What has driven that approach?

Mr. Coaker: The whole approach has been driven by a desire to balance judicial oversight, practical policing and the policy objective of ensuring that we prevent individuals dissipating assetstrying to get rid of their criminal gain. I know that Mr. Brokenshire will agree. Essentially, it is about responding to what the police have said, whereby people in a number of cases get around the law because they get rid of the assets before a restraining order can be applied.

Q 228

James Brokenshire: But I am sure you will appreciate that in many circumstances, obtaining a warrant or an order requires judicial involvement. Therefore, why was the decision taken in this case not to proceed down that route? In doing so, are you not setting yourself up for potential problems under the Human Rights Act 1998?

Mr. Coaker: I do not think so. The public policy objective is that we believe we can get more criminally gained assets off somebody if we make the retention of those assets possible. To obtain the order, most of the time you will seek prior judicial approval; you will have to get approval beyond 48 hours; conditions are attached and in the Bill; and alongside it, there is a code of practice. All those things exist. When we talked about human rights and the new powers in the Bill, interestingly, the Bar Council said that, generally, it did not think that the provisions were contrary to article 1 of the 1998 Act.

Q 229

James Brokenshire: But it said that there was some complexity.

Mr. Coaker: It did not think that the provisions were contrary to article 1except when there was undue delay. In other words, you could say that article 1 would be interfered with if, as a consequence of the new provisions, it took too long to get the case to court, where the person could prove their innocence, or otherwise. I looked that up, because I thought it a reasonable point to make. I looked, too, at the provisions in the Bill, and pages 33 and 34 outline a persons ability to go back to court to argue for the discharge, variation or lapse of a detention order, so, if they think that there is undue delay, they can go back and argue their case. That helps with respect to human rights legislation, and the Bill also states:
If an application is made...in relation to an order the following persons may appeal to the Crown Court
for its discharge. So, there are protections in respect of the new order and a persons ability to ensure that their human rights are not adversely impacted on to the extent that we would breach our obligations.

Q 230

James Brokenshire: The situation is somewhat more complex than that, as the evidence suggested this morning, but we will come to that later in Committee.
On extradition, do you agree with the potential problem or challenge that was identified by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and the police in evidence on the increasing number of European arrest warrants and what that might mean?

Mr. Coaker: In the sense of the practical problems that may arise?

Q 231

James Brokenshire: Yes. They suggested that numbers were escalating almost exponentially.

Mr. Coaker: I do not know about exponentially, but there would be an increase once we became part of the Schengen information system. Part of that membership, however, is to ensure that we have better access to the systems alerts and information. As you know, currently, all the warrants that SOCA certifies are the responsibility of the Metropolitan police, and Commander Gibson said that that creates issues for him. From April, however, it will be the responsibility not only of the Met, but of the regions. There will be issues about that, too, but do I agree that there are issues about how we practically manage, first, the situation from April? Yes, I do. Do I believe that when we join SIS II and receive an increase in the number of European arrest warrants, there will be practical implications in respect of managing and dealing with that? Yes, there will be, and we will have to deal with it.

Q 232

James Brokenshire: On Libertys key point about returning people to the jurisdiction from which they have been extradited to, in essence, serve their sentence, is the intention for it to apply to UK nationals or simply to overseas nationals?

Mr. Coaker: No, it could apply to UK nationals. Again, it is clearly laid out in the Bill. The judicial process obviously has to be consistent with human rights obligations. It says on page 70 that, should the Secretary of State be involved through the other route of people being returned, she can only act in a way compatible with convention rights. As you know, if the Home Secretary does not do that, it is open to judicial review. I think that there are safeguards. I would like to put an important point on the record that Shami Chakrabarti made, which is that she does not see this as a titanic battle or as a really fundamental clash of principles. It is actually trying to ensure that the changes being made are consistent with our human rights obligations, and, of course, we want to do that.

James Brokenshire: Sir Nicholas, we can obviously return to this in Committee.

Q 233

Evan Harris: To follow on from that question, I think that Libertys point is that simply saying that everyone must act within the convention is not the same as specific safeguards being written into the legislationI suspect that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will say something similar. You described it as a backstop that applies to anything that could possibly be imagined: you cannot say, Well, no ones going to break the Human Rights Act because there will be a judicial review. I think that Liberty is saying that you should write safeguards in, such as a need for the Secretary of State to have a reasonableness test or some evidence that removing someone to serve their sentence elsewhere might lead to problems.

Mr. Coaker: May I respectfully suggest that, if Dr. Harris was right in that assertion, why would Liberty say that this is not a titanic battle? Why would it say that there are not huge issues of principle at stake? I hope that I am not misrepresenting what was said this morning, but I am sure that I am right in saying that Shami Chakrabarti said that this is not a titanic battle of principle.

Q 234

Evan Harris: I think that she thinks it is an obvious point. You should not have a subjective requirement that
the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the return is compatible
with the European convention on human rights. You should replace it with an objective requirement.

Mr. Coaker: I understand the point that Dr. Harris is trying to make. However, it is actually written into the Bill on page 17, proposed new section 153D, where is says that everything that the Secretary of State does must be compatible with convention rights. Rather than simply being assumed, it is laid out. That was the point. We laid it out and tried to take account of that very sort of objection. I will say againnobody is above the law, so if the Secretary of State did not act in that way, there could be a judicial review.

Q 235

Evan Harris: The specific provision that Liberty is suggesting is that instead of the wording that you have pointed to
in a case in which the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the return is compatible
the Bill should say, if the return is not compatible, so that the discretion and the subjective view of the Secretary of State is taken out, which enables the case to be made more easily. I think that that is Libertys point, and I think that it is right to say that that is not a titanic difference, but it is a substantive one.

Mr. Coaker: I do not know whether it is titanic or substantive. My point was that we can argue and debate this, but if there was a fundamental problem in terms of an attack on the individual liberties and human rights of people of this country, we would have heard it this morning and we did not.

Q 236

Paul Holmes: This morning the Bar Council and Liberty expressed concern about extending the principle that you can seize goods, property, cash, family heirlooms and so on, from people who may in the long run be found to be not guilty, but who are deprived of that property. They were worried about abandoning the principle of having to have some proof that the property constitutes ill-gotten gains.

Mr. Coaker: They did mention those concerns; we all have them. We do not want people who are completely innocent to have their property detained. I do not have the transcript in front of me, but interestingly the Bar Council did not say that it was opposed to the provision. As you know, Mr. Holmes, you have a restraint order and the items that you are concerned about stay in the possession of the person you have concerns about. That is a big loophole, particularly with low-value goods. It means that law enforcement officers come to us and say that that gives people the opportunity to squirrel the items away, to dissipate them. In the end, you do not have the amount of criminally-gotten gain that you should be able to attack when it comes to a confiscation order on conviction. So what we try to do in the Bill is simply close that loophole in a proportionate way, consistent with the principles that we have just talked about. The Bar Council said that it understands what we are doing, but is concerned about some of the safeguards.

Q 237

Paul Holmes: I forget the exact wording, but the Bar Council specifically said that there is a shift away from being able to put up cash instead of the possession. It said that that is a significant shift, not just a tidying-up amendment.

Mr. Coaker: It is a serious tidying-up.

Q 238

Paul Holmes: Or a substantive one even.
I think that I know the answer to my other question, given what the police said on Tuesday about how relatively new a lot of this work is. You legislated on the asset recovery regime in 2005 and again in 2007, and now, a year and a couple of months later, you are legislating on it again. Why have there been so many changes in such a short time?

Mr. Coaker: In 2007-08, £136 million was recovered, and a further £33 million or £34 million was recovered in the first few months of 2008-09. That is progressthe restraining, the courts and so onbut is it enough? No, it is not. Do we want to do more? Yes, we do. This is a developing area of policy. We have moved considerably on the proceeds of crime, taking ill-gotten gains off people, but I do not thinkI will be bluntthat we would have been able to get through Parliament legislation such as we are now proposing, had that been what we started with. But by acting bit by bit, step by step, we have enabled the public to see working the changes to legislation that enable us to take from people the ill-gotten gains that we do not want them to benefit from.
Regarding low-value goods, the public themselves on my estates and yours, too, I am sure, turn around and say, Why is it that somebody has been arrested but is still driving around in their vehicle, still flaunting their wealth, still being a terrible role model for young people? We dont want that to happen. Why isnt the state doing something about it? That is what we are trying to do in this clause. There is a proper debate to be had about safeguardshow the measure should work and what should be donebut the public policy objective surely has to be that if somebody is trying to make money from crime, we ought to do everything we can to stop them and to stop them benefiting from it. That is what I would expect as a citizen, that is what my constituents expect, and I am sure that it is what all Members constituents expect.

Q 239

Paul Holmes: Finally, based on the proportion of cases that have failed, what sort of compensation bill do you expect?

Mr. Coaker: Shall I be honest? The answer is that I do not know. Compensation arrangements are available in the Bill because a consistent, proper, proportionate way is to ensure that the law works effectively but, if the law does get it wrong, people should be compensated.

Nicholas Winterton: It is appropriate that the Minister should have the last word. It is now 3 oclock, so that brings us to the end of this sitting. I thank Alan Campbell, Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office; Jim Fitzpatrick, Under-Secretary of State for Transport; and Minister of State Vernon Coaker for the helpful evidence they have given and the way they have dealt with all the questions.
The Committee will in a moment be adjourned by me until next Tuesday at 10.30am when we will begin the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill in Committee Room 11.
I now call the Whip to move the motion, and I will give him the words so that he can repeat them: That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Ordered, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.(Mr. Ian Austin.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 3 February at half- past Ten oclock.